Who are you Voting for?

My personal thought on abortion is simple. If the fetus could survive outside the womb, then it cannot be aborted. If it cannot, then it can be aborted. I have never been in support of 3rd trimester abortions, for that very reason.

However, I try to stay out of abortion threads (although I always fail miserably) because people get so darned...rabid about it. Pro-choice is exactly that....choice. No one says everyone who gets pregnant HAS to have an abortion. All we're saying is that it is an option, one which we may or may not take, depending on our situation and beliefs.

What I would dearly love is for someone to explain to me three things. 1) Why is it that most conservatives are pro-death penalty but anti-abortion? 2) Why is it that most liberals are anti-death penalty but pro-choice? 3) Why do some conservatives think that blowing up a clinic that performs abortions, killing everyone within, is somehow not as bad as aborting a baby?

No one can EVER answer those.

 

1) We base our beliefs upon the Bible, mainly. If you study the Bible, you will learn that it says in Exodus 20:6 "Thou shalt not kill". Well, when you search for how the word ratsach, which was translated "kill", you find that it was translated as murderer, manslayer, or slayer in most instances (47 more to be exact). In those same instances, it also says that they shall be put to death.

2) Liberals I have described before. That is why they believe the opposite.

3) There are people like that all over. They are terrorists. I do not condone that type of behavior. Nor does the majority of conservatives.

 

I think you're right that no one can answer your first two questions as they are individual opinions in nature.

However, number 3 has some flaws. I wasn't going to post anymore on this subject but...

"some conservatives think that blowing up a clinic..." what???

I'd go so far as to say NO CONSERVATIVES "think that blowing up a clinic ...killing everyone within" is ever the right thing to do.

Several individuals over the past years have done this criminal activity (even some of them have attempted or actually achieved their goal when the clinic was empty -- but that is still a criminal and dangerous thing to do).

As with any group of people, "hippies", liberals, environmentalists, "save the whale"rs, conservatives -- whatever label you want to slap on a group -- there's always individuals who will come out of that "group" and do their own EXTREME thing which that group does not want to take any "credit for". Sadly, the media "links the individual" and the "group" together for better or for worse. There are countless examples of this politically and socially across the globe and this is no exception.

Linking "conservatives" as advocating, endorsing, agreeing with or supporting the individuals who blow up abortion clinics, thereby harming other people is outrageous. One man or woman certainly can and has acted alone throughout history. We can often step back and see how this is not linked with a group -- but when emotions are involved, or a heated topic that is set in a political arena, then it's so much harder to keep sick individuals and their criminal acts separate from huge groups of people and their beliefs.

Why not just lump them all together so we can say "See that's how THEY ALL ARE!" Very dangerous ground for all of us -- we need to be careful that none of us look at a small criminal portion of a population, neighborhood, country, business, religion, political party, family, or _______(fill in the blank) and judge a larger segment of that said group based solely on that initial small criminal portion.

 

To expand on this a little bit. If I recall right, this Hebrew word means when the slaying is premeditated, planned, etc.

 

I'm going to make a prediction. Bush wins by 10-15%, based on the backyard BBQ theory.

 

Point taken, but it only leads to more intellectualizing and putting spin on things. Define murder, for instance. Agreed that when someone kills another we arrest and proceed to charge and convict for murder. The argument has been made (both ways) for when "life" starts and when a fetus becomes "human". You cannot murder that which is not human. I've raised six kids...one of which was planned. While we never considered terminating any of them, they all seemed to come at unopportune times. It was very difficult for a number of years. BTW, I wanted all of my kids, planned or not. I used to be a counselor and tried to help many teens that were unwanted. Mom got preggers young, didn't want the child, and took her resentment out on the kid for his/her entire life. So it begs the question of which is better, terming an unwanted pregnancy or allowing this unwanted child to live a life of lonliness and just plain hell. Personally I do not support any arguement about the issue. I think that it is a very personal issue that needs to be addressed very personally based on the situation at the time. For instance, the trauma a woman experiences resulting from **** is absolutely tremendous and effects her to her core. A woman who gets pregnant from **** and has the child never gets over the trauma, not really. She has a daily reminder of the event, and core issues are extremely difficult to deal with. Does she deserve this? Does the child? Bah.....this issue goes on ad infinitum. Dr. Phil doesn't even like to go here. It is a bad situation simply because nobody is right, and nobody is wrong. The "right to life" folks are absolutely right in their beliefs and can pose intelligent arguement to support the position. The "choice" folks are absolutely right in their beliefs and can pose intelligent arguement to support their position. Net effect...a draw. Which brings me to my position of if you don't believe in it don't have one. I really try to keep it that simple.

 

OK...I'll bite. WTH is the backyard BBQ theory?

 

The conservative side is easy to explain. The Bible is NOT pacifist. Pacifist errors all hinge on a poor translation of the commandment "Thou shalt not kill". Kill is too broad a word. The original word clearly meant murder, which is a very specific type of killing, NOT all killing in general. To accept it as prohibition against ALL killing cannot be done, as elsewhere in the Law it clearly states that killing to protect your PROPERTY (much less your life) is not a sin or crime, and the Old Testament Law specifies the death penalty for several different crimes, and commands them to go to war from time to time. Christianity strives to protect INNOCENT life, not all life. There IS a difference. Christianity has a firm framework of right and wrong, and firm concepts of law and justice, up to and including capital punishment.

It's not universal, but as a group, most liberals tend to embrace situational ethics, which states that circumstances can excuse actions. For some of them, there doesn't seem to be ANY action that can't be excused by some circumstances. Hence, they're more prone to allow a woman to choose to kill a baby, and more prone to forgive and soften the punishment for a murderer. Even a repeat murderer, which blows my mind. Since they have no firm framework of right and wrong, they tend to invent "justice" as they go, and whatever feels more warm and fuzzy appeals to them. Hard decisions on hard issues are repugnant to them, so they tend to justify things that conservatives can't justify.

As far as blowing up abortion clinics, those characters are NOT accepted by conservatives, or Christians, or anybody else, any more than liberals are all Ted Kaczynskis. Liberals love to paint the entire conservative/Christian group as being murdering terrorists, but it's just not true. ANY large group will have a few nut-cases, but painting the whole group as them is a lie.

 

I'm sorry...where again was it exactly that I said ALL conservatives, or even a majority of conservatives, blow up medical clinics, and/or support those who do?

I get where you're going with that one, pegg, but it doesn't wash with what I said. I would no more lump all of any kind of person in a group than I would walk naked down main street at noon.

I said "some conservatives", because you can absolutely bet your life savings on the fact that no one who has blown up a clinic was a liberal. Kinda like I would've said "some Muslims" if we had been discussing terrorist activity in the Middle East. In no way is it inclusive of ALL conservatives/Muslims, nor did I say or imply it was.

I do find it interesting that you didn't jump on the "some liberals" comment at all, while going on for a rather long post about conservatives. Which tells me exactly which camp you fall into. There's nothing wrong with that, I just find it interesting, because both comments were virtually the same, and could both have been taken slightly out of context to imply I meant "all" when I said "some".

Personally, I am a liberal who believes in choice, and also believes in the death penalty in certain circumstances.

 

The candidate that voters believe will throw a better backyard BBQ party will win.

 

Sheesh....Crappers, I can't believe that I couldn't figure that out. Do you think either of them can spell BBQ?

 

I don't know -- where did I say that YOU said ALL conservatives or even a majority of conservatives.....???

That's very right-minded of you (right as in "sane", not to be taken politically). I was not simply addressing you as I continued in my post (hence the references to environmentalists, etc.) -- but to show that it's dangerous ground when anyone takes a "few" and links it to "a group"

Right -- and I don't think it's even "some" -- I think it's a few rare strange extremists -- maybe they started out as "conservatives" but they've already crossed a line way before they lowered themselves to this action.

Sorry - I re-read things and don't know what you mean....I mentioned your first two points and said I wasn't "going there" (you talk about MOST conservatives and MOST liberals).

I did intentionally do a "rather long post about conservatives" because that was the point I was intentionally defending. I thought I made that clear at the beginning of my post -- I wasn't trying to "jump on" one comment and hope no one noticed if I "ignore" other ones. No surprises here, I told you which one I was referring to.

I'm sure someone else can come and defend the "some liberals" comment if they like....shucks, I'm only one person.

 

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!

I gotta take a nap

 

I'm voting for the HULK ... but you probably already knew that! ;-)

 

Not that it actually means anything, but it's funny that our little poll pretty well reflects what the Reuters poll has been showing for the last couple of days. 48% Bush and 44% Kerry.

It's going to be an interesting election.

 

untill bush says " oh yea. .I know where the POW's and Bin Laden are. .and I got them" and be branded a hero. . .

 

And just like THIS poll, they all mean less than they'd like you to think. Since we don't elect a president by popular vote, but by the electors each state sends to the electoral college, what's more important is how each candidate is doing in the "swing states" that aren't already locked in to one candidate or the other. THOSE will decide the election. And like our little poll here, a lot that voted in the poll will not actually vote in the election, which skews things a bit.

I'd hate to be a bookie trying to figure odds on this election.

 

FYI FWIW: Despite a SEVERE Slashdotting tonight, the relative numbers didn't change much at the above URL! ;-)

 

I'll vote for the first guy that puts me on the voting list and sends me confirmation on it. Bush, Kerry, if you want my vote....put me on the list. It's not that hard for one of you to track me down.

 

Just what we need. Another alien voting.

 

lol G.T. I am an American living abroad.

 

You're no broad, you're a LADY. But all teachers are aliens, just ask any of the students.

Sorry, couldn't resist. It's probably too late to do it now, and I don't know what the procedure is, but you probably could have gotten an absentee ballot.

 

This site would get alot of money then. http://www.click-smilies.de/sammlung0304/lachen/laughing-smiley-014.gifhttp://www.click-smilies.de/sammlung0304/lachen/laughing-smiley-018.gifhttp://www.click-smilies.de/sammlung0304/lachen/laughing-smiley-014.gifhttp://www.click-smilies.de/sammlung0304/lachen/laughing-smiley-018.gif

 

I'm voting for Bush. I don't think it would be right for Kerry to lead our troops, who are currently overseas, considering he doesn't support everything going on (or maybe he does who the crud knows where he stands on ANYTHING anymore).

 

I'm voting for Daffy Duck!

 

i will vote for who ever gives me a new car new house and a new top of the line computer plus pay my bills for there 4 or 8 years that he stays in there and thin maybe i will vote for him

 

That's not a president you want, that's a sugar daddy

Really though, does that mean you won't be voting?

 

so i want a sugar momma and yes i will be voting for Kerry. i dont want to say what i think about Bush

 

I know your comment was made in fun, but that attitude, for real, is a bigger threat to our form of governmnet than the terrorists are. We've slipped, in our attitudes and expectations, from a republic ruled by law, to a democracy, ruled by the whim and greed of the people. Which is why most all successful politicians are the ones that promise to GIVE you more. Short of a revolution in our expectations and our understanding of our government, we're doomed.

 

Yay!! Good choice.

But honestly, I would like to say I'd be voting for Bush, but I just really don't know. I like Bush as a person but I disagree with many of his policies. And as for Kerry...well...I side with more of his views but don't really know what to think of him. I dunno, he seems blank through my eyes. And tons of people hate Bush so much that they'll vote for anyone BUT Bush, so Kerry is just a refuge to them.

The situation in Iraq and Afghanistan (mainly them, but the US as well, of course) is so complicated it's hard to say who's doing the right thing.

I'm so torn, I don't know what to think.

 

we're doomed is right. but you got to think we are the only ones that can do anything about it and if people dont change the world wont change so what are you going to do about it.

 

I totally agree with that point brother. I feel as though I could actually sit down & talk with Bush. He's real in my view. Kerry on the other hand seems very cold to me. I never base my decision on what they say they're gonna do, because we all know that's not usually what takes place. I also don't base my opinions on any one party either. I'm for the best person. Right now that's Bush without a doubt.

Another thing about Bush is the way he relates to his wife. You can tell he loves & respects her & knows she is the best thing that ever happened to him. Kerry on the other hand doesn't seem to have time for his wife.

I remember 9/11 very well. Bush was here in Florida viisting a grade school when he got the news about what had happened & you could tell by the look on his face that he was deeply upset by the news. I would like to see how any of us would have handled that situation. For anyone to say they would have done something different or better is just plain ludicrouse. Until you are faced with such a situation, you could never know exactly how you would respond. I believe he's done a good job overall & switching administrations at this point has the potential of creating even more problems.

 

The funny thing is, GT, that the very definition of democracy depends on whether you interpret the Greek meaning "rule of the people" or "rule by the mob"


Nowadays, 'direct democracy' (which is more likely to be found in countries which use the opinions of the people [or mob] through, e.g. referrenda, to determine which policy or action should be taken) is pretty closely linked with rule by the mob... whereas on the other end of the scale, representitive democracy is a bit too much like rule by the aristocracy.

The real problem is that noone knows for sure what democracy really means, other then "it is whatever you want it to mean"

 

Apparently only half the USA population that is eligible to vote, bother to do so. According to our news it looks like a lot more are registering and are going to vote this time. Just watched a TV programme on Florida in 2000 and the forthcoming 2004 election. Doesn't look like much has really changed in that state. Disenfranchised / deleted black registrations. Electric voting, no paper confirmation printed out, etc. Sounds like electronic chads to me.

As half the population don't vote, there should have been a " I won't be voting" option. Bazza

BTW, voting is compulsory in OZ. Baz

 

i can;t believe this .... does every here make like 500,000$ a year? y is bush in the lead?

 

Because we'd like to. Because we'd like to live long enought to.

 

If only the representative democracy actually represented the intrests and opinions of the majority instead of the influential minority.

 

That's another area where the media helps to distort the truth. Who exactly pays the taxes? It ain't the poor. I make less than $50k, so I get back some of the taxes I pay. Most of it is Social security taxes which I probably won't ever see. If you really want to make it fair, we should have a flat (luxury) tax. No tax on food (bought in grocery stores). That way the people who make more spend more and thus pay more taxes.

Now, when Kerry is elected, we will definitely see a tax increase to support all his programs. Who's going to pay for that? Just remember who supplies the jobs in this country. It isn't the poor. So, when you tax a company much more, where does that leave them? They have to cut somewhere. They aren't the government and can't simply raise taxes (prices in their case).

 

No, we don't all make $500K. MG is a fairly diverse site, with a little bit of everybody. The poll here, while not scientific, almost exactly mirrors the national polls. The idea that only the rich support Bush, or Republicans is a Democratic fairy tale.

You're quite right that at the heart, it's a people (citizen) problem, NOT a politician problem. We get... always... the government we deserve, since we send them there. Only real solution is to get people to realize that politics, at all levels, is more important than MTV or the World Series, and get them to put the time and attention into government that it really deserves. How do we do that? I really don't know, other than trying to influence and motivate the people that you touch personally.

Actually it does. The vast majority don't give a crap, except, maybe for a few days every 4 years. So most of the politicians don't give a crap about us. They pay attention to those that DO care... the special interest groups. If "we the people" cared as much as we talk about, and held them accountable, and threw them out of office when needed, they WOULD pay attention, or we'd put in somebody that did. Other than the presidency, every incumbent in Congress has a huge advantage over anybody trying to replace them. Once there, we tend to leave them there until they die or retire. The press pontificates, and big business throws money around, but on November 2, Peter Jennings and the president of Haliburton each get one vote, just like the rest of us.

It's almost funny. Kerry claims to be the protector of American jobs, but every additional burden placed on American businesses encourages them to go overseas, where the burden is less. Usually far less. And not just direct costs; EPA, OSHA, EEOC, and other restrictions all push jobs away. And make no mistake, Kerry is promising a LOT of additional spending. Either he's lying about his programs, or he's lying about his spending. He can't have it both ways.

 

"Full-fledged dictatorship" is a bit melodramatic, but Nader DID make the world safe from Corvairs.

 

Attitudes like that put a professional wrestler in office. Of course the right to choose also gives you the option not to choose.

 

So what you're saying is Nader is the best choice for president.

 

It's his opinion, you know Freddy, he's perfectly entitled to it! (And by the way, AFAIK aristocracy is rule by the influential minority)

Anyway, this quote from Douglas Adams sums up the situation pretty well:

 

first off, higher taxes on the wealthy will not effect in job cuts, in the long run because he is giving the vast majority of them to rich ppl .. what is going to happen in effect, because we are paying more(percentage wise of the entire 'pie') and rich ppl less, is a large widening of the income gap and possible destruction of our middle class ... the middle and lower class are going to bear the burden of taxation *not* the billionaires ... anyone with any kind of concept of economics knows that it is far more economically sound to recieve large chunks of money from fewer sources than smaller chunks from more sources as it is more profitable (ex. i have 1000 leds and i sell them for 1$ a piece but pay 50 cents for them, i have to pay a worker 10$ an hour to box them, it takes 5 minutes to box each one, i lose 300$. If i sell one monitor for 1000$ i pay 800$ for it, i make short of 200$ ... same concept applies to taxes)

not only that ... take for instance the iraq war(im not going to debate that here) but there is no denying it is costing a butt load of money! where do you think the gov't is going to get all that money to pay for it? when the upper class is getting the big tax breaks ... guess where it's coming from? OUR pocket ... yes all those billions and billions(if not trillians) of dollars are going to come from ppl who make less than 50,000$ a year

I know you pro-bush ppl might scoff at this website: (but give me a better one before you claim it's false)
http://www.costofwar.com/

it says the war is costing *US* is well over 140 billion dollars ... can you afford that???? i don't think you can ... because that is who is paying for it *YOU AND YOUR CHILDREN AND YOUR CHILDRENS CHILDREN* !!! .. given that the war is obviously not the only factor in gov't expenses, in fact i would think it's hardly a fraction .. given that rich ppl are paying less and less taxes ... given that bush is actually increasing spending ... given that we've lost more jobs this past 4 years than in the great depression(!!!??)(lot less tax income for the gov't as bush's tax plans depend on middle class and lower) ... given that the deficit has grown to the largest it has ever been in the history of the United States in less than 4 short years, when 4 years ago it might have been paid off by 2010 if we had *ahem* used a democratic economic plan

 

WORD!

 

I think there will be alot of bitterness well after the election. The democrats are still whining about Gore's loss. I was more than annoyed just seeing Bush's face on the TV for months after he was elected. (Yes I voted Gore)

But those were different times.

 

A tie? I read this last night and was thinking about how insane this election has the potential to be.

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=politicsNews&storyID=6630331

 

Dictatorship? The last time I checked, the president doesn't make rogue decisions! Do you have any idea how many people were involved in that decision? He didn't just take a nap and wake up and say, hey, let's go increase our debt by millions and get Americans killed!!
I'm ex-military, and I would be proud to serve in the U.S. Military again to keep those terrorists from killing people here in "MY COUNTRY". The death toll of 9/11 was 2,752 +/- 10. We have lost a little over 1,000 so far in Iraq. Also, when you enlist in the military, it is (now) by choice. You know the job training and college etc...is splendid, but the first and foremost obligation that one has, is to his/her country. We have a "0" tolerance for terrorism in the U.S. and Bush has to honor that. Another decision that he did not make on his own!
Kerry is a weasel, and I wouldn't give him my vote if he chopped my fingers off! The tax issue, to me, that is on the backburner. We need to get this war wrapped up. I feel that Bush can do it, he has to make hard decisions, and he's capable in that respect. Kerry might lead us into a "BIG OLE' TEAPARTY".
BEGGING BIN LADEN, WILL YOU PLEASE, PLEASE, OH PLEASE STOP!!!! Like that'll work!
Just my opinion.
BUSH HAS MY VOTE.......CAN YOU TELL!!!!!!

 

"this would be a lot easier if it were a dictatorship, so long as I was the dictator" - President Bush

and Bush doesn't care where Bin Laden is. He would've ordered his family questioned BEFORE they were shipped out of the country soon AFTER 911

 

Um, not to be, you know, a 'weasly' liberal or anything, but.... hasn't Israel been fighting a war on terror for the past couple of decades? A 'War on Terror' is so vague, it can mean anything the people in charge want it to mean, which allows them to attack anyone that fulfills the criteria... and it appears that if they cant do that, they lie.
(I guess i should apologise for that, after all, it was stuff my gov't made up)

0 tolerance for terrorism? What was funding the Taliban then? Or maybe Bay of Pigs?

In any case, fine, go after Al-Qaieda, lord knows everyone is fine with you doing that, but invading other countries on trumped up charges on the basis that they "might" have WMD, and "might" sponsor terrorism, while blatantly ignoring countries that actually do... well, many people are going to feel legitmately worried about that.

Vote for Bush, vote for Kerry, but make sure you're doing it for the right reasons, not that you are afraid (or angry) of/at terrorists.... or the other candidate.